SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.
What is truth? How do we find it and does it still carry weight in public debate? Given recent political events, these are important and urgent questions. But of the two industries I work in that are concerned with truth — science and journalism — only the latter has seriously engaged and looked for answers. Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.
[...] What's overlooked by many is how science is losing its relevance as a source of truth. To reclaim this relevance, scientists, communicators, institutions and funders must work to change the way that socially relevant science is presented to the public. This is not about better media training for researchers. It demands a rethink about the kind of science that we want to communicate to broader society. This message may sound familiar but the new focus on post-truth shows there is now a tangible danger that must be addressed.
[...] If the public is better equipped to navigate this science, it would restore trust and improve understanding of different verdicts, and perhaps help people to see through some of the fake news that circulates on scientific matters.
http://www.nature.com/news/give-the-public-the-tools-to-trust-scientists-1.21307
What do you think, will the general public trust these tools, if available ?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:11AM
Ok, show me a monopoly that doesn't have the government mixed up in it. Yes private entities do achieve monopoly status, but the government is almost always mixed up. Railroads? Government grants of eminent domain to only ONE company gives a monopoly on all transport between the nodes of the rail line. Other modes of transit were hopelessly impractical compared to the cost of shipping by rail. Occasionally a town would end up serviced by two railroads and one would buy up the other, again with government approval since they permitted the monopoly they granted to be bought out. Banks are basically indistinguishable from the government; only question is does the government run the banks or is it the other way around? Is there a distinction worth arguing about? Microsoft? Artificial scarcity created by government grant of monopoly plus more government in creating a legal environment that essentially forbids creating clones.
Counter examples? The closest I can think of is Apple, but they are down to way under 50% in the U.S. and more like 10% worldwide and falling. They are a cult, people in it will buy their stuff regardless, no government force or meddling needed. But monopoly they ain't, their brief near total market share was fixed by the marketplace.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:34AM
The reason that the government is always involved in monopolies is that Capitalism rewards the most efficient and it is more efficient to form/manipulate/bribe/employ a government to enforce your monopoly.
Using the railroad example. Businessman sees this new thing called a railroad and wants a monopoly in it as then he can make maximum profits for minimal work. Best way to do this is to get the government on his side, then the government can give him the land, including using imminent domain, the government can make it hard or impossible for competitors to get anywhere and all the other things that government does to support the monopoly.
The governments powers exist to help the monopolist and capitalism is always going to lead to tyranny as it is in the interest of the capitalist to have a tyrannical government enforcing his monopoly. Remove the governments powers and they'll come right back as the powerful want a strong government to protect their interests.
Funny enough, capitalism will also lead to a certain amount of socialism, as getting society to pay for stuff is also more efficient. Look at the case of the fire insurance industry. They quickly discovered it was way more efficient to have society to pay for fire departments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:33AM
But that's not capitalism! Forcing someone to allocate capital in a certain way (e.g., enforcing a monopoly) is in contravention of the primary principle of capitalism: Voluntary trade.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday January 20 2017, @07:15AM
Sure, because everyone who has a shitty job does that job voluntarily. Right.
The need to eat in order to live, the need to have some place to live in, and a few other needs are not negotiable; they simply exist. You cannot voluntarily decide to evade the laws of nature. Therefore the whole idea that there can be a real world economy where everything is done voluntarily is an illusion. Yes, on paper it may be voluntarily. In reality, it isn't.
You know what the closest to pure capitalism in the Western world is? The Mafia!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 21 2017, @02:13AM
Capitalism is about using your capital to leverage acquiring more capital, and sometimes using the capital to acquire other forms of power, including political power.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:59PM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
Erm, I don't think it primary has to do with money, although it is plausible that some buttering also takes place. Most often it is combination of simplicity through delegation, or mere blindness and enchantment with novelty. Granting a monopoly simplifies regulation and loads burden of learning about the nature of new phenomenons off legislators' shoulders. It is similar to feudalism or Mandarin system - give some of your problems to someone else and let that someone reap the rewards as long as you get your share. Monopolies break usually only when a challenger contestant appears on the horizon, after masses get disgruntled with exploitation and restrictions.